Re: [soac-mapo] Please participate - Poll on updated recommendations

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard:

Changing the scope of the existing Community Objection standard was, indeed, my 
concern.  

Some folks may also have been concerned that 2.2 refers to national law versus 
international law.  I understand the Recommendation 6 objections must be based 
on International law, but this recommendation only relates to Community 
objections.  Nations should be eligible as communities, but there shouldn't be 
new standards of community objections based on this point.    

I agree with Bertrand, as I think he mentioned on the last call, that certain 
concerns based on national law fit within the existing Community objection 
framework.  Therefore, I would support Recommendation 2.2. with the following 
additions:

>> “Recommendation 2.2: If individual governments have objections based on 
>> contradiction with specific national laws, such objections MAY be submitted 
>> through the Community Objections procedure OUTLINED IN DAGv4.”


I do not support a recommendation that we undo all of the work on the scope of 
community objections that already appears in DAGv4.

Thanks.

Jon



On Sep 15, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:

> I was also surprised by the number of 'no' votes on this.
> 
> In addition to the possible reasons suggested by Chuck (below) is it because 
> some felt that it implied a change to the existing Community Objection 
> standard?
> 
> Am interested to hear why people voted against this.
> 
> RT
> 
> 
> On Sep 15, 2010, at 9:53 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
>> I have concerns about the poll results so far on the following:
>>  
>> “Recommendation 2.2: If individual governments have objections based on 
>> contradiction with specific national laws, such objections should be 
>> submitted through the Community Objections procedure?”
>> It was my impression that this was a very important point for governments 
>> and I believe that AGv4 allows it anyway.  For those that oppose this, is it 
>> because you don’t think it should be stated by this group or do you think 
>> that the guidebook should be changed to not allow this?  If the latter, I 
>> think that may be a problem in terms of getting support of government 
>> members of our group.
>>  
>> Chuck
>>  
>> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
>> Of Marika Konings
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 2:28 PM
>> To: soac-mapo
>> Subject: [soac-mapo] Please participate - Poll on updated recommendations
>> Importance: High
>>  
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> You’ll hereby find the link to the doodle poll on the recommendations that 
>> were updated on the basis of yesterday’s discussion: 
>> http://www.doodle.com/3qyfei92icsqw3ie . Please indicate in the poll for 
>> each of the updated recommendations whether you support the recommendation 
>> or not. You should use the attached document as your reference tool. 
>> 
>> Please complete the poll at the latest by Wednesday 15 September at 17.00 
>> UTC.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Marika
>